Appeal No. 2004-0290
Application No. 09/742,692
require any specific concentration of the detergent composition,
including an aqueous solution comprising one g/l of the detergent
composition. Rather, claim 1 recites a property of the reagent
when it is used in an aqueous wash solution comprising the
specified concentration of the detergent composition.
We concur with the examiner that the principal espoused in
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.
1990) supports the examiner’s rejection. In particular, when a
claimed composition reasonably appears to be substantially the
same as a composition disclosed by the prior art, the burden is
on the applicant to prove that the prior art composition does not
necessarily or inherently possess characteristics attributed to
the claimed composition. See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252,
1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In the present case, based
on the broad overlapping nature between the class of enzymes
embraced by appealed claim 1 and the class of enzymes disclosed
in Beggs, we find it reasonable to conclude that enzymes within
the Beggs disclosure possess the claimed pI. Significantly,
appellants’ specification and Beggs provide identical
descriptions for “[t]he bleaching enzyme” and for “[t]he enzyme
part, capable of generating a bleaching chemical” (compare pages
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007